State v. Collins
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Citation | 79 Kan. 411,99 P. 817 |
| Docket Number | 16,068 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. ALBERT COLLINS |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1909 |
99 P. 817
79 Kan. 411
THE STATE OF KANSAS
v.
ALBERT COLLINS
No. 16,068
Supreme Court of Kansas
January 12, 1909
Decided January, 1909.
Appeal from Finney district court; WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Fred S. Jackson, attorney-general, and John S. Dawson, assistant attorney-general, for The State.
Milton Brown, for appellant.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Albert Collins appeals from a conviction on a charge of larceny. Complaint is made because [79 Kan. 412] the information described the stolen property as $ 110 in money, without attempting a further description or stating that the informant was unable to give one. Such an objection has been held to be good upon a motion to quash (The State v. Tilney, 38 Kan. 714, 17 P. 606), but not upon a motion in arrest of judgment (The State v. Henry, 24 Kan. 457). No motion to quash was filed in this case. Aside from a motion in arrest of judgment, the sufficiency of the information was challenged only by an objection to the introduction of any evidence under it, which is entitled to no more favorable treatment. (Fort Scott v. Dunkerton, 78 Kan. 189, 96 P. 50.)
The denying of a motion for a continuance on account of an absent witness is assigned as error. The affidavit offered in its support, however, failed to show sufficient effort to compel his attendance. It stated that the defendant had endeavored to procure his presence, but specified nothing that had been done in this connection. It said that before the arrest the witness left the county without the defendant's knowledge or consent, but for anything that appears in the record a subpoena might easily have been served upon him in some other part of the state. It also alleged that the defendant had not learned until the day before that the witness was in San Francisco, but did not negative knowledge of his whereabouts up to that time.
The defendant also claims that there was no evidence to support the verdict. There was testimony that the complainant missed a pocketbook containing $ 110 and some papers; that about that time the defendant was in his company, and shortly afterward was seen with a like amount of money and a pocketbook answering the same description, out of which he took a paper which he said belonged to the complainant. This seems a sufficient foundation for a conviction. The verdict mentioned $ 70 as the amount stolen. If it is necessary to account for the difference between this and the sum [79 Kan....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dixson
...which it was held sufficient: People v. Harris, 114 Cal. 575, 46 P. 602;People v. Cahill, 11 Cal. App. 685, 106 P. 115;State v. Collins, 79 Kan. 411, 99 P. 817;State v. Court, 225 Mo. 609, 125 S. W. 451. We hold the contention of counsel for defendant, in respect to the corpus delicti, with......
-
State v. Dixson
...... Wells, supra, in which it was held sufficient. We consider it. much stronger in this case than in any of the following named. cases, in each of which it was held sufficient: People v. Harris, 114 Cal. 575, 46 P. 602; People v. Cahill, 11 Cal.App. 685, 106 P. 115; State v. Collins, 79 Kan. 411, 99 P. 817; State v. Court, 225 Mo. 609, 125 S.W. 451. We hold the contention. of counsel for defendant, in respect to the corpus delicti,. without merit. . . Counsel. assign as error the action of the trial court in permitting,. over objection, officers ......
-
State v. Lucas, 48227
...of the money that was taken in a robbery. (State v. Tilney, 38 Kan. 714, 17 P. 606; State v. Ready, 44 Kan. 697, 26 P. 58; State v. Collins, 79 Kan. 411, 99 P. 817; State v. Ferron, 122 Kan. 845, 253 P. 402; State v. Ross, 152 Kan. 495, 105 P.2d 879.) The authority of these decisions has be......
-
State v. Hale
...delay in asking for the continuance, nor is the motion, being oral, supported by affidavit. (See, K.S.A. 60-240(c); State v. Collins, 79 Kan. 411, 99 P. 817.) Of greater significance, however, is the fact that defense counsel apparently took no steps to have the pills analyzed even after he......